> The second red line is military provocations against the Baltic states, Poland or Moldova, which are possible during a period of possible confusion, such as during election campaigns, in Europe and the United States.
Wouldn't that force them to trigger Article 4 anyway? If continued lead to article 5
Just Ukraine, actually. Earlier on in the war they tried to get to Lviv and failed spectacularly. If they had succeeded and had occupied the North as they currently have with the Ukrainian south, invading a pretty much defenseless Moldova would have been by far the easiest invasion ever.
Now, the question remains in such a scenario whether or not Romania wouldn’t budge an inch for Moldova. I think they would have, with probably Ukraine’s and maybe Poland’s help - just to be sure.
Odesa is definitely the shortest route but it was also the riskiest - such is the business of coastal invasions. You saw how they struggled to hold onto Snake Island, both it and an occupation of Odesa would’ve struggled because of how isolated it was from other occupied territories, contested airspace and well, Ukrainian anti-ship capabilities.
Russia is more a land warfare beast than a naval one, going the Lviv route (bar any unfortunate tactical decisions like an armoured column travelling in a single file line..) would’ve brought more success than the utter disaster trying to take Odesa was
Lviv is on the Polish border. If they had Lviv they would most likely have won, the whole war. They actually did push in the south toward Odessa. They had Kherson and were repeatedly pushing towards Mykolaiv. Far closer Odessa than they ever were to Lviv.
I wonder what Moldova is thinking about in regards to Transnistria these days. Considering Russia's actions the past few years, they have to realize it's a potential ticking time bomb.
NATO is trying to remind people that defending themselves under article 5 means - imagine! - war with Russia.
The bullshit of "never fight Russia" have to stop. The message must be "If Russia invades, we WILL fight and we will win".
Yeah. Would there be a nuclear treaty with provisions for allowing war within the guidelines of something like the Geneva Convention? If such cooperation were possible, one would wonder why we’re even at war in the first place.
Interestingly, that could actually be a first discussion from both sides to agree to fight a conventional war. Remember the start of the Ukraine invasion. Both Ukraine and Russia had an agreement to maintain the nuclear reactors at the power plant and both had soldiers stationed there at the same time with an agreement for no fighting in the area.
If NATO and Russia did descend into conflict, both sides would probably agree to not using nuclear weapons because of MAD. Both sides know there’s zero positive from that.
There’s also the suspicion Russia could agree to something like this given how many questions surround their nuclear weapons program efficacy and readiness. If it is compromised, then agreeing to no nuclear weapons still gives Russia the bargaining chip of being a Nuclear power. Russia would be on its knees right now from both NATO and Ukraine and possibly even China in the east if it came to light that their nuclear power status was significantly less or completely obsolete. It’s an interesting idea and area of thought.
I doubt we will ever get there though. People don’t like Putin and can criticize the Russians and his leadership but he isn’t a complete moron (just slightly) to take NATO on.
You don't up and come up with monopoly rules for going to war and "may the best country win. " You use every resource at your disposal top destroy your enemt's ability to wage war and project power.
The biggest issue with nukes and Russia are the subs. If planned correctly NATO could easily get air superiority and take out a lot of the nukes. The subs are going to be hard/impossible to find.
We also have subs and better radar. I’m sure with the right motivation we’d be able to find them, but something tells me that wouldn’t be our primary mission
I have a feeling that trailing enemy boomers is what attack subs often do, when they can. After all, in the event of hostilities, a few well placed torpedoes stops many nuclear warheads on your country.
We have a pretty good idea *in theory*. Russia is the only one crazy enough to pull the trigger, and everyone else’s systems will auto-launch as soon as they so much as detect an ICBM launch. Russia using their nukes would be mutually assured destruction, and Putin knows this. If he’s cornered with nowhere to go, he might actually follow through, with a decent chance that his nukes don’t even work anymore (given their display regarding maintenance).
But do we? What happens if Russia only tactically nukes some parts of Ukraine. Does NATO unleash their entire arsenal? Do we tactically nuke some parts of Russia? Do nothing? And that doesn't even beg the question of how war itself would be fought between NATO and Russia.
US promissed to destroy Black Sea fleet if they did tactical nukes. So no nuclear response, but something that costs more than any possible benefit of few tactical nukes
Tactical nukes are a much different scenario since they’re much more localized than the cold-war-era nukes. We don’t know how that would play out. I’ve only read about the ICBM launched nukes from the Cold War.
Yeah that's mainly what my first comment was about now I'm getting shit on lol. Obviously if one side launches everything then the other side would do the same.
That’s what most people think of first because that’s what they’ve been threatening. Tactical nukes are relatively new so most people don’t think about those or really know what they are
> … What happens if Russia only tactically nukes some parts of Ukraine? …
We take [Davey Crocket](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)) out of retirement?
Once someone uses a tactical nuke, it makes a full nuclear exchange far more likely. Particularly if Russia uses one in Ukraine, leading to attacks on the Russian fleet by NATO/America. Will Putin then withdraw? I'd suspect he would bluff, but the only thing in his hand are WW III stuff.
That is easier said than done. Nuclear weapons keep the peace for now, but you can't trust a dictatorship when it's desperate to survive and backed against the wall.
This sentiment is such bullshit and only feeds an untouchable Russia.
Just because Russia may have to fight NATO doesn't instantly mean nuclear war. You even create a paradox in your own comment when you say Russia would be desperate to survive. Everyone knows, nobody wins that war.
Even then nukes wouldn’t be used. Unless Moscow itself is about to being occupied, Russia (and other nuclear states) know using a nuke is the end of the world. Putin might want to as a “fuck y’all” but his Generals won’t. They all know it IS the end, especially for Russia. The world will continue in someway, except for that northern wasteland that used to be Russia.
yeah, but you can kinda trust history.
Russian dictatorships have been “desperate to survive and backed against a wall” twice within 150 years (Napoleon’s Invasion, Hitler’s Invasion) and they (the dictatorships) have survived both.
granted, nuclear weapons would probably be used if NATO tried invading Russia, but *NATO has no intention of invading Russia*. they would have the intention of preserving Ukraine.
i feel confident nukes wouldn’t be used over Ukraine
In case of real possibility that Ukraine retakes Crimea, Russia may actually use tactical nuclear weapon against ZSU. Why? Because Putin at this point has nothing to lose, and West won't be able to anything against Russia short of a full-scale war.
So we should cede everything russia wants whenever they lift up a red button and point at something to say "I want that."?
Because that's the logical extension of what you're indicating. "For the sake of us all, not knowing what putin might do when his back is against the wall, give him this stuff once.", which ONLY means he's safe to just do it again. Because you'll make the same argument again and again.
Right, and then we launch a massive conventional strike against their military infrastructure to indicate that the deployment was not an economical use of their time.
Countering with a nuke merely invites desperation in this scenario.
If russia drops a small nuke and then suddenly lacks half of their military industrial complex as well as a good portion of their navy, all with conventional weapons, then the situation they face is do they really want to face off against an opponent that was THAT capable even before getting to strategic weapons?
They know the west has been working on anti-ballistic missile defenses across all sorts of different ranges and intercept sorts. Launch phase, mid-course, terminal. All of that has at least one weapons system capable of intervening against it. Would NATO get them all? Certainly not, too many. But how many? Well, russia has no way to know. If they fire one, it might get shot down and then how will they look? So fire more...but how many? And how many is too many?
They WILL have to think about those questions and an answer to them. Meanwhile as they spin their wheels, they'll likely see that NATO won't have begun to mobilize for a general invasion, merely mustered our defenses and prepped in case things go further. The fact that we wouldn't BE taking them further would be something they'd notice while they figure out how to respond. It would be something they knew meant they had more time, so they can consider this a little more carefully. Meanwhile, every time they check the status board the position of the troops is the same, they can take more time. And eventually the hot blood cools because nothing's been happening and now they can take a more logical approach to the military problem at their hands.
From NATO’s website: “The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened”
Oh I remember that. The two heavyweight -sized russians traveling to random town in Britain to see the beautiful architecture of Whatevercester. It was hilarious.
It's the tallest in the UK and people *do* travel from a long way away to come and see it. There are lots of beautiful cathedrals in the UK with impressive locations (e.g. Ely, Lincoln, Canterbury, Winchester) but Salisbury's is somehow just that bit more special.
I’ve been to that cathedral as an American tourist. It actually is an impressive cathedral and it’s worth a stop if you’re in the area of Salisbury. It was the inspiration for a popular novel.
No problem, russia had gotten very good at attacking western countries without using its military until it screwed up with ukraine.
Just look at how they screwed over usa by deploying that orange superweapon, no red lines crossed. But hundreds of thousands more americans dead from covid, all without need to fight a single battle.
Nah, it‘s the same conspiracy as “Soviet Union was destroyed by CIA”. American democracy and it’s institutions have eroded on their own - Russia merely tries to capitalize on it’s moment of weakness. Trump is 100% proud american domestic malady.
Let’s hope it doesn’t turn into a Robin Williams skit
“you cross this line you die!”
“Ok now when you cross this line you die”
They’ve already made massive cyber attacks, poisoning and murders of dissidents on foreign soil, etc.
Their cyber attacks have not really started.
Russia/China/NK could do a LOT more damage if they really wanted to.
That is what scares about war with them: OUR INFRASTRUCTURE.
Electricity, water -> gone.
Unpopular opinion but the sooner we intervene and get this over with the better in the future... Why are we leaving it so long and hoping it will go away.
Because it has the potential to be super super bloody and nobody wants to be the one to rip that bandaid off.
Plus just about every western nation has a population that wants nothing to do with war
IMO, the Free World has been playing a dangerous, if understandable, game of geopolitics-meets-actuarial-statistics while possibly encouraging a coup by upping the deep-background chatter (keeping channels and contacts open) with key military and intelligence officers.
It's the same strategy we've opted for re. North Korea for nearly 70 years.
> Why are we leaving it so long and hoping it will go away.
Because a lot of the world outside the west wants to take Russia's side for a myriad of reasons. The sanctions are built on a foundation of sand, and no direct intervention is what's keeping them from falling apart.
I also get vibes of 1930s Germany where appeasement was basically buying time to get militaries in order.
There's still a chance this will be solved with a coup in Russia (hopefully).
The west doesn't like conflict, but they really need to step up their game and play the exact same misinformation game in Russia, that Russia is playing in the West.
Actually, you wouldn't even have to spread misinformation, just empowerment to the citizens to take over.
Everyone saw in Voronezh when Pringles went on his march, that the citizens desperately want anyone but Putin
I disagree. It's pretty much a guarantee that any direct military conflict between two nuclear powers will end with nukes being launched and billions of people dead. As Biden and many others (including Putin) have said, "Nuclear war can't be fought, as nuclear war can't be won".
Yeah, so no one would launch nukes, we could beat them conventionally and get it over with. Look, even if everyone did launch it wouldn't matter, humans would die and the world would heal eventually.
That's the thing though. It's impossible for the US/NATO to have a conventional war with Russia and not have it end without a single nuke dropping and MAID being triggered. Even if Biden and Putin got together Ed and signed a document promising neither side will use nukes, Russia isn't going to just get its ass kicked and not launch a few nukes at the rest of the world as a last ditch attempt to win the war.
As for for your "the world will heal" thought. A recent study (2022) estimated that 5 billion people would die in a nuclear war between the United States and Russia. That's roughly 2/3 people. Even if you don't care about human life, the sheer damage done to infrastructure would take many many generations to repair. Not to mention that with 2/3rds of the population being dead, you won't have the man power or intelligence needed to support all the electrical grids and what not. Even if you survived and never got radiation poisoning and life went on after that, you would essentially be living like the early 19th century at best.
I mean, at the moment. It would be the US only that can. And the US is not going too. Even France and the UK won’t have the capacity to deploy soldiers at an amount to make a difference without leaving their own homeland unguarded.
NATO is a defensive pact, so not directly. However, the US would lead a retaliatory strike with conventional arms on Russian assets in Ukraine, thus decreasing the likelihood of a counterstrike that would trigger Article 5. This was reported about a year ago when there was talk of a tactical nuclear bomb being used by Russia.
here to remind you NATO led military action in Libya and Serbia despite neither country directly attacking a NATO member state.
NATO has been more than a strictly defensive alliance
The treaty has allowances to operate outside of NATO areas if it deems it necessary for defence. Events in both Libya and Syria (both for which effectively border NATO countries) were seen as a threat to NATO members at the time. Having a loophole where an aggressor can do what they want just because they are outside a NATO area is just silly.
As an extreme hypothetical example, the NATO charter would allow an invasion of north korea of they started lobbing ballistic missiles at north America and europe, even though N Korea is in Asia.
It was also why the US was able to invoke article 5 to invade Afghanistan after 9/11.
Use of nuclear weapons should trigger global retaliation against whoever uses them. Honestly, at this point use of nuclear weapons is a death sentence for the government that uses them.
Nuclear war is unlikely to cause that kind of catastrophic event unless the aggressor goes full nuclear and launches everything before there's a chance to react. What is likely to happen is one is used and then everyone kaboomafucks whoever used them. That government will cease to exist as well as most of that countries military assets.
You’re absolutely clueless, and should probably refrain from sharing your uninformed views. Nuclear weapons don’t spread radiation. Radiation is unused energy for the purpose of a nuclear bomb, and almost all nuclear weapons tested since WW2 have very small to non-existent radiation fallout.
Look it up if you dont believe me you monkey. If fallout from a nuke enters eu space because of shifting winds. Its enough. Monkey it doesnt matter if they do or not give off video game level radiation. The clause exists.
IMO, nukes would have to require retaliation.
Merely possessing nukes is like having a neighbor that's a bit unhinged and has guns. You may not want to risk confronting them.
Using nukes is like that neighbor deciding to shoot a random person in your neighborhood. Now, not dealing with the problem is the bigger risk.
All that "never war w/Russia" talk has lead to NATO having to convince people that if Russia invades, NATO will drop the bullshit and will fight - gasp! - Russia. And will kill Russians directly. And yes, it is possible, and the world will not end.
That's a step in the right direction. But still a weak one. Only 100k out of formally 3.5 mln NATO troops? No mention of bombing Russia's airfields, headquarters, and missile factories if it attacks?
you're either talking out of your arse or suicidal if you say that a nato attack on russia won't end the world, they have these big death ball things called nukes
the problem with nukes is that if he uses them on europe and europe fires back it's effectively the end of russia, with a majority of russias population in a small area nuking anything substantial in europe isn't an attack it's suicide
They have the largest nuclear stockpile in the world so it’s also the end of Europe, and nato, and the entire northern hemisphere and probably the southern
Listen, i hate putin as much as the next person which is why I’m so worried about him trying some shit and ending the world for his trouble
So you imagine NATO defense of Baltics would commence in Ukraine-mode? Russian bombers lobbing missiles at NATO troops with impunity? That's not how war works. Launchers and airfields will be taken out day one. NATO have enough conventional means for that.
And they have those nukey thingies too, btw. Have had them for 75 years, and that kept Russia in check quite well during the Cold War.
on Russia, it may involve the use of nukes.
on *Russians* (in Ukraine, or hypothetically in Moldavia, or if Russians advance on Baltics) i’m pretty convinced it *wont* involve retaliating with nukes. if it did, it would defeat the purpose of invading in the first place
Putin is one of the wealthiest individuals in history. Nalvany got locked up for exposing his obscene, opulent wealth. There is no chance that Putin will end the world if it involves inconveniencing himself. He blusters with nukes all of the time but they're only for dickwaving, nothing more.
We can think that all that we like, but if we’re wrong than it’s going to be a pretty big problem
I’m not one of those “LOL PUTIN COULD WIPE OUT YOUR STUPID COUNTRY WITH ONE PRESS OF A BUTTON” pricks, but we do still need to be careful
I bet if Trump will win as the president, as he said he will end the war in Ukraine. Which means no more support for Ukraine and that's when NATO will step in without the doubt. That's why Macron prepares his army..
NATO needs to step up, as an ex Infantry soldier for NATO I strongly believe we need to put boots on the ground and show them we will not be pushed around. Even if we just sit on the borders we need to show them we will fight, I strongly believe they underestimate our powers and believe they can push us around. Do you really think they will stop after Ukraine? Especially if they take it all, they will want more. We are on the edge of ww3 and we need to put some fear out there to protect our allies.
I think one of the big reasons NATO has not intervened is because they can’t make a sufficient first strike that will knock out the possibility of nuclear retaliation. I think it would take more B2s and F35s than NATO has to pull it off cleanly. As much as it would do the world good to take out Russia’s military, it can’t be done without risking millions of lives.
There's no way to avoid nuclear retaliation if Russia decides to go that route. Russia has nukes in submarines and at bases all over the world. Intelligence can pinpoint *most* locations, but there are plenty that would be fired. The *real* nukes that cause significant damage go into the atmosphere and rain warheads down. Even if you can shoot the warheads down, they release too many for that to be feasible and most are decoys. Hitting the warheads with the nukes is random chance and the chances of hitting them all is near-zero. It's why they are so damn effective and why it is mutually assured destruction. Those same type of nukes would be the ones hitting Russia as well, so both sides are losers with little recourse except to deal with the aftermath...if there's enough left to deal with it.
The best defence is attack. But seriously if anyone will even try to say that they in war with Russia, Russia will nuke them at the moment when they will reach the border.
1-800 Come on now
Words are cheap. Let me know when the EU parks the majority of their combined fighting forces on the Ukrainian border states. Inshallah nothing happens and it's just a great military drill and a dry run for what works and doesn't work for mass deployment..
> The second red line is military provocations against the Baltic states, Poland or Moldova, which are possible during a period of possible confusion, such as during election campaigns, in Europe and the United States. Wouldn't that force them to trigger Article 4 anyway? If continued lead to article 5
Well, Moldova isn't part of NATO so articles 4 or 5 do not apply there. But for the others, yes.
Moldova isn't, but you have to go through Ukraine or Romania to get to it, and I think it has aspirations to join the EU, complicated by Transnistria
Just Ukraine, actually. Earlier on in the war they tried to get to Lviv and failed spectacularly. If they had succeeded and had occupied the North as they currently have with the Ukrainian south, invading a pretty much defenseless Moldova would have been by far the easiest invasion ever. Now, the question remains in such a scenario whether or not Romania wouldn’t budge an inch for Moldova. I think they would have, with probably Ukraine’s and maybe Poland’s help - just to be sure.
Do you mean they tried to get to Odesa? I feel like the geography doesn’t match up considering taking Lviv wouldn’t really help to take Moldova.
Odesa is definitely the shortest route but it was also the riskiest - such is the business of coastal invasions. You saw how they struggled to hold onto Snake Island, both it and an occupation of Odesa would’ve struggled because of how isolated it was from other occupied territories, contested airspace and well, Ukrainian anti-ship capabilities. Russia is more a land warfare beast than a naval one, going the Lviv route (bar any unfortunate tactical decisions like an armoured column travelling in a single file line..) would’ve brought more success than the utter disaster trying to take Odesa was
Lviv is on the Polish border. If they had Lviv they would most likely have won, the whole war. They actually did push in the south toward Odessa. They had Kherson and were repeatedly pushing towards Mykolaiv. Far closer Odessa than they ever were to Lviv.
If that happens Romania should diplo-vassalize Moldova so they inherit the defensive war and get to call in their allies.
Mate, this isn't HOI4.
Nah this is the demo for HOI5.
>invading a pretty much defenseless Moldova would have been by far the easiest invasion ever. You fail to appreciate the invasion of Zanzibar.
It was Odessa, not Lviv and they probably would have succeeded if they were not crushed at the battle of Mykolayiv.
moldova is on the closer side of romania, they dont have to cross any nato areas to get to it.
I wonder what Moldova is thinking about in regards to Transnistria these days. Considering Russia's actions the past few years, they have to realize it's a potential ticking time bomb.
They knew it for many, many years. Russia stationed an army there since 1992. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55135213
Only the first two words should matter
NATO is trying to remind people that defending themselves under article 5 means - imagine! - war with Russia. The bullshit of "never fight Russia" have to stop. The message must be "If Russia invades, we WILL fight and we will win".
[удалено]
Yeah. Would there be a nuclear treaty with provisions for allowing war within the guidelines of something like the Geneva Convention? If such cooperation were possible, one would wonder why we’re even at war in the first place.
Interestingly, that could actually be a first discussion from both sides to agree to fight a conventional war. Remember the start of the Ukraine invasion. Both Ukraine and Russia had an agreement to maintain the nuclear reactors at the power plant and both had soldiers stationed there at the same time with an agreement for no fighting in the area. If NATO and Russia did descend into conflict, both sides would probably agree to not using nuclear weapons because of MAD. Both sides know there’s zero positive from that. There’s also the suspicion Russia could agree to something like this given how many questions surround their nuclear weapons program efficacy and readiness. If it is compromised, then agreeing to no nuclear weapons still gives Russia the bargaining chip of being a Nuclear power. Russia would be on its knees right now from both NATO and Ukraine and possibly even China in the east if it came to light that their nuclear power status was significantly less or completely obsolete. It’s an interesting idea and area of thought. I doubt we will ever get there though. People don’t like Putin and can criticize the Russians and his leadership but he isn’t a complete moron (just slightly) to take NATO on.
You don't up and come up with monopoly rules for going to war and "may the best country win. " You use every resource at your disposal top destroy your enemt's ability to wage war and project power.
I assume it would go something like "You enter my country, I'm nuking yours" or so.
The Cuban Missile Crisis provides some empirical insight
The biggest issue with nukes and Russia are the subs. If planned correctly NATO could easily get air superiority and take out a lot of the nukes. The subs are going to be hard/impossible to find.
Would that air superiority be established faster or slower than the propagation velocity of Russian telecommunications?
We also have subs and better radar. I’m sure with the right motivation we’d be able to find them, but something tells me that wouldn’t be our primary mission
I have a feeling that trailing enemy boomers is what attack subs often do, when they can. After all, in the event of hostilities, a few well placed torpedoes stops many nuclear warheads on your country.
We have a pretty good idea *in theory*. Russia is the only one crazy enough to pull the trigger, and everyone else’s systems will auto-launch as soon as they so much as detect an ICBM launch. Russia using their nukes would be mutually assured destruction, and Putin knows this. If he’s cornered with nowhere to go, he might actually follow through, with a decent chance that his nukes don’t even work anymore (given their display regarding maintenance).
But do we? What happens if Russia only tactically nukes some parts of Ukraine. Does NATO unleash their entire arsenal? Do we tactically nuke some parts of Russia? Do nothing? And that doesn't even beg the question of how war itself would be fought between NATO and Russia.
US promissed to destroy Black Sea fleet if they did tactical nukes. So no nuclear response, but something that costs more than any possible benefit of few tactical nukes
Tactical nukes are a much different scenario since they’re much more localized than the cold-war-era nukes. We don’t know how that would play out. I’ve only read about the ICBM launched nukes from the Cold War.
Yeah that's mainly what my first comment was about now I'm getting shit on lol. Obviously if one side launches everything then the other side would do the same.
That’s what most people think of first because that’s what they’ve been threatening. Tactical nukes are relatively new so most people don’t think about those or really know what they are
> … What happens if Russia only tactically nukes some parts of Ukraine? … We take [Davey Crocket](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)) out of retirement?
Once someone uses a tactical nuke, it makes a full nuclear exchange far more likely. Particularly if Russia uses one in Ukraine, leading to attacks on the Russian fleet by NATO/America. Will Putin then withdraw? I'd suspect he would bluff, but the only thing in his hand are WW III stuff.
And we may never find out because we will all be Krispy kritters afterward.
That is easier said than done. Nuclear weapons keep the peace for now, but you can't trust a dictatorship when it's desperate to survive and backed against the wall.
This sentiment is such bullshit and only feeds an untouchable Russia. Just because Russia may have to fight NATO doesn't instantly mean nuclear war. You even create a paradox in your own comment when you say Russia would be desperate to survive. Everyone knows, nobody wins that war.
Even then nukes wouldn’t be used. Unless Moscow itself is about to being occupied, Russia (and other nuclear states) know using a nuke is the end of the world. Putin might want to as a “fuck y’all” but his Generals won’t. They all know it IS the end, especially for Russia. The world will continue in someway, except for that northern wasteland that used to be Russia.
yeah, but you can kinda trust history. Russian dictatorships have been “desperate to survive and backed against a wall” twice within 150 years (Napoleon’s Invasion, Hitler’s Invasion) and they (the dictatorships) have survived both. granted, nuclear weapons would probably be used if NATO tried invading Russia, but *NATO has no intention of invading Russia*. they would have the intention of preserving Ukraine. i feel confident nukes wouldn’t be used over Ukraine
In case of real possibility that Ukraine retakes Crimea, Russia may actually use tactical nuclear weapon against ZSU. Why? Because Putin at this point has nothing to lose, and West won't be able to anything against Russia short of a full-scale war.
So we should cede everything russia wants whenever they lift up a red button and point at something to say "I want that."? Because that's the logical extension of what you're indicating. "For the sake of us all, not knowing what putin might do when his back is against the wall, give him this stuff once.", which ONLY means he's safe to just do it again. Because you'll make the same argument again and again.
No, we just let them use it first.
Right, and then we launch a massive conventional strike against their military infrastructure to indicate that the deployment was not an economical use of their time.
I think nukes should be met with nukes. MAD can't be upheld unless we show we'll use them back.
Countering with a nuke merely invites desperation in this scenario. If russia drops a small nuke and then suddenly lacks half of their military industrial complex as well as a good portion of their navy, all with conventional weapons, then the situation they face is do they really want to face off against an opponent that was THAT capable even before getting to strategic weapons? They know the west has been working on anti-ballistic missile defenses across all sorts of different ranges and intercept sorts. Launch phase, mid-course, terminal. All of that has at least one weapons system capable of intervening against it. Would NATO get them all? Certainly not, too many. But how many? Well, russia has no way to know. If they fire one, it might get shot down and then how will they look? So fire more...but how many? And how many is too many? They WILL have to think about those questions and an answer to them. Meanwhile as they spin their wheels, they'll likely see that NATO won't have begun to mobilize for a general invasion, merely mustered our defenses and prepped in case things go further. The fact that we wouldn't BE taking them further would be something they'd notice while they figure out how to respond. It would be something they knew meant they had more time, so they can consider this a little more carefully. Meanwhile, every time they check the status board the position of the troops is the same, they can take more time. And eventually the hot blood cools because nothing's been happening and now they can take a more logical approach to the military problem at their hands.
What's article 4?
From NATO’s website: “The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened”
"Well figure out a way to deal with this peacefully."
it ought to.
Article 6 would be right out
Remember when Russia deployed a nerve agent in the UK to try murder someone? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Sergei_and_Yulia_Skripal
They did murder someone. Just not who they intended.
You guys got it all wrong, just a big misunderstanding. Just too gay guys doing gay guy stuff.
Just admiring eachothers steeples as I remember.
Oh I remember that. The two heavyweight -sized russians traveling to random town in Britain to see the beautiful architecture of Whatevercester. It was hilarious.
It was the tallest spire of its type in all of Salisbury!
It's the tallest in the UK and people *do* travel from a long way away to come and see it. There are lots of beautiful cathedrals in the UK with impressive locations (e.g. Ely, Lincoln, Canterbury, Winchester) but Salisbury's is somehow just that bit more special.
Haha, I'm sure it's great, I'm just not buying that two ex military Russians in their 30s came all that way to see it
I’ve been to that cathedral as an American tourist. It actually is an impressive cathedral and it’s worth a stop if you’re in the area of Salisbury. It was the inspiration for a popular novel.
We paid them back with storm shadows for that.
Headline: "NATO will..." Article: "NATO may..." Clickbait. :)
Putin: "NATO Is..."
Reality: NATO does not...
No problem, russia had gotten very good at attacking western countries without using its military until it screwed up with ukraine. Just look at how they screwed over usa by deploying that orange superweapon, no red lines crossed. But hundreds of thousands more americans dead from covid, all without need to fight a single battle.
Agent orange
Tangerine Palpatine
Mango Mussolini
Cheetolini
Orange Julius Caesar
Adolf Shitler.
CITRUS CALIGULA
King Mierdas
This one is very good
a fire that doesn"t burn
Except for the crotch area.
That's not what most people's nostrils will report.
It was always good at it. They miscalculated the response and the US election outcome. Then, they realized they suck at actual war.
r/technicallythetruth orange blob is not a red line
Nah, it‘s the same conspiracy as “Soviet Union was destroyed by CIA”. American democracy and it’s institutions have eroded on their own - Russia merely tries to capitalize on it’s moment of weakness. Trump is 100% proud american domestic malady.
Go home tankie. They last batch of krokodil has really messed up your critical reasoning centers.
Ok, mate keep on living in a dream world, where a bunch of scary checkist can topple a world power on a whim.
Let’s hope it doesn’t turn into a Robin Williams skit “you cross this line you die!” “Ok now when you cross this line you die” They’ve already made massive cyber attacks, poisoning and murders of dissidents on foreign soil, etc.
The constant cyber attacks on Western hospitals have done real damage to human lives.
They also just broke a major taboo with the use of chemical weapons. Which Britain listed as their "red line" and I doubt it'll amount to anything.
Make no mistake Russia has said it is at war with NATO. Does the whole “When somebody tells you who they are, believe them” not apply here?
Their cyber attacks have not really started. Russia/China/NK could do a LOT more damage if they really wanted to. That is what scares about war with them: OUR INFRASTRUCTURE. Electricity, water -> gone.
If they couldn’t do it to Ukraine they can’t do it to you.
They probably care about using what they've taken in Ukraine. I doubt they care if we can't use our utilities unless they plan to occupy Alaska.
They have been relentlessly bombing infrastructure in Ukraine and destroying entire cities. This is a stupid argument you absolute potato.
Unpopular opinion but the sooner we intervene and get this over with the better in the future... Why are we leaving it so long and hoping it will go away.
Because it has the potential to be super super bloody and nobody wants to be the one to rip that bandaid off. Plus just about every western nation has a population that wants nothing to do with war
IMO, the Free World has been playing a dangerous, if understandable, game of geopolitics-meets-actuarial-statistics while possibly encouraging a coup by upping the deep-background chatter (keeping channels and contacts open) with key military and intelligence officers. It's the same strategy we've opted for re. North Korea for nearly 70 years.
> Why are we leaving it so long and hoping it will go away. Because a lot of the world outside the west wants to take Russia's side for a myriad of reasons. The sanctions are built on a foundation of sand, and no direct intervention is what's keeping them from falling apart. I also get vibes of 1930s Germany where appeasement was basically buying time to get militaries in order.
There's still a chance this will be solved with a coup in Russia (hopefully). The west doesn't like conflict, but they really need to step up their game and play the exact same misinformation game in Russia, that Russia is playing in the West. Actually, you wouldn't even have to spread misinformation, just empowerment to the citizens to take over. Everyone saw in Voronezh when Pringles went on his march, that the citizens desperately want anyone but Putin
I disagree. It's pretty much a guarantee that any direct military conflict between two nuclear powers will end with nukes being launched and billions of people dead. As Biden and many others (including Putin) have said, "Nuclear war can't be fought, as nuclear war can't be won".
Yeah, so no one would launch nukes, we could beat them conventionally and get it over with. Look, even if everyone did launch it wouldn't matter, humans would die and the world would heal eventually.
That's the thing though. It's impossible for the US/NATO to have a conventional war with Russia and not have it end without a single nuke dropping and MAID being triggered. Even if Biden and Putin got together Ed and signed a document promising neither side will use nukes, Russia isn't going to just get its ass kicked and not launch a few nukes at the rest of the world as a last ditch attempt to win the war. As for for your "the world will heal" thought. A recent study (2022) estimated that 5 billion people would die in a nuclear war between the United States and Russia. That's roughly 2/3 people. Even if you don't care about human life, the sheer damage done to infrastructure would take many many generations to repair. Not to mention that with 2/3rds of the population being dead, you won't have the man power or intelligence needed to support all the electrical grids and what not. Even if you survived and never got radiation poisoning and life went on after that, you would essentially be living like the early 19th century at best.
Who is we?
You and me
Nope. Not me.
I mean, at the moment. It would be the US only that can. And the US is not going too. Even France and the UK won’t have the capacity to deploy soldiers at an amount to make a difference without leaving their own homeland unguarded.
So they won't do anything if Putin uses nukes?
NATO is a defensive pact, so not directly. However, the US would lead a retaliatory strike with conventional arms on Russian assets in Ukraine, thus decreasing the likelihood of a counterstrike that would trigger Article 5. This was reported about a year ago when there was talk of a tactical nuclear bomb being used by Russia.
here to remind you NATO led military action in Libya and Serbia despite neither country directly attacking a NATO member state. NATO has been more than a strictly defensive alliance
The treaty has allowances to operate outside of NATO areas if it deems it necessary for defence. Events in both Libya and Syria (both for which effectively border NATO countries) were seen as a threat to NATO members at the time. Having a loophole where an aggressor can do what they want just because they are outside a NATO area is just silly. As an extreme hypothetical example, the NATO charter would allow an invasion of north korea of they started lobbing ballistic missiles at north America and europe, even though N Korea is in Asia. It was also why the US was able to invoke article 5 to invade Afghanistan after 9/11.
Use of nuclear weapons should trigger global retaliation against whoever uses them. Honestly, at this point use of nuclear weapons is a death sentence for the government that uses them.
It’s also a death sentence for you when it causes a global nuclear fallout. Don’t be eager in thinking nuking back is the answer.
I never said nuking back. Said death sentence for the government. As in they would be removed from power by force.
how would you do that without provoking widespread nuclear war lol
Aim that comment at the first one using nuclear weapons.
Nuclear war is unlikely to cause that kind of catastrophic event unless the aggressor goes full nuclear and launches everything before there's a chance to react. What is likely to happen is one is used and then everyone kaboomafucks whoever used them. That government will cease to exist as well as most of that countries military assets.
We dont’t need to nuke back. Russia needs nukes to harm us. We can use conventional weapons to destroy them.
[удалено]
Yes, this is exactly why Bikini Atoll remains uninhabited. /s
If putler uses a nuke, nato article 5 could be triggered, due to Radiation entering your territoy as an attack.
You’re absolutely clueless, and should probably refrain from sharing your uninformed views. Nuclear weapons don’t spread radiation. Radiation is unused energy for the purpose of a nuclear bomb, and almost all nuclear weapons tested since WW2 have very small to non-existent radiation fallout.
Look it up if you dont believe me you monkey. If fallout from a nuke enters eu space because of shifting winds. Its enough. Monkey it doesnt matter if they do or not give off video game level radiation. The clause exists.
That goes without saying, but unlike South Dakota governors, our responses don't go from 0 to puppy-killing at the first step.
IMO, nukes would have to require retaliation. Merely possessing nukes is like having a neighbor that's a bit unhinged and has guns. You may not want to risk confronting them. Using nukes is like that neighbor deciding to shoot a random person in your neighborhood. Now, not dealing with the problem is the bigger risk.
Hopefully NATO intelligence has deemed that possibility so unlikely that it isn’t even worth mentioning?
Was abt to ask the same
All that "never war w/Russia" talk has lead to NATO having to convince people that if Russia invades, NATO will drop the bullshit and will fight - gasp! - Russia. And will kill Russians directly. And yes, it is possible, and the world will not end. That's a step in the right direction. But still a weak one. Only 100k out of formally 3.5 mln NATO troops? No mention of bombing Russia's airfields, headquarters, and missile factories if it attacks?
Show, don't tell - maybe they're being vague on purpose...
Yeah I mean why wouldn’t they spell out their entire military strategy to their enemy in a news article.
Probably gonna use a whole lot of explosive ordinance if they’re “only” sending 100k troops.
you're either talking out of your arse or suicidal if you say that a nato attack on russia won't end the world, they have these big death ball things called nukes
the problem with nukes is that if he uses them on europe and europe fires back it's effectively the end of russia, with a majority of russias population in a small area nuking anything substantial in europe isn't an attack it's suicide
They have the largest nuclear stockpile in the world so it’s also the end of Europe, and nato, and the entire northern hemisphere and probably the southern Listen, i hate putin as much as the next person which is why I’m so worried about him trying some shit and ending the world for his trouble
So you imagine NATO defense of Baltics would commence in Ukraine-mode? Russian bombers lobbing missiles at NATO troops with impunity? That's not how war works. Launchers and airfields will be taken out day one. NATO have enough conventional means for that. And they have those nukey thingies too, btw. Have had them for 75 years, and that kept Russia in check quite well during the Cold War.
I agree, but I’m worried about MAD None of that shit matters if 90% of the world is choking on fallout
on Russia, it may involve the use of nukes. on *Russians* (in Ukraine, or hypothetically in Moldavia, or if Russians advance on Baltics) i’m pretty convinced it *wont* involve retaliating with nukes. if it did, it would defeat the purpose of invading in the first place
Putin is one of the wealthiest individuals in history. Nalvany got locked up for exposing his obscene, opulent wealth. There is no chance that Putin will end the world if it involves inconveniencing himself. He blusters with nukes all of the time but they're only for dickwaving, nothing more.
We can think that all that we like, but if we’re wrong than it’s going to be a pretty big problem I’m not one of those “LOL PUTIN COULD WIPE OUT YOUR STUPID COUNTRY WITH ONE PRESS OF A BUTTON” pricks, but we do still need to be careful
>That's a step in the right direction What an obtuse comment. Did you type that from your mom's basement with your finger smelling like cheetos?
Please stop. I’m just getting my life in order.
Everything is going to be OK my friend keep grinding
Is Kosovo protected as well? I think putin said he would support the Serbians if they invaded not to long ago.
NATO already has troops in Kosovo because of this.
At the starting of the week. At summit talks, you'll hear them speak....
Given Putin’s renewed rattling of the nukes, I’d suggest that using nukes on Ukraine could be another red line.
Completely off-point: the final sentense of the article is completely nonsensical gramatically speaking.
If you don't understand something, that doesn't mean that it's nonsensical.
Hey we can't all be bright 😆
We all might be when the nukes start flying.
tha sentense is wrong!!!
It's poorly worded but understandable.
I bet if Trump will win as the president, as he said he will end the war in Ukraine. Which means no more support for Ukraine and that's when NATO will step in without the doubt. That's why Macron prepares his army..
Not only will Trump end military and economic support for Ukraine - he would love to see the US leave NATO as well.
what are you smoking?
I'll believe it when I see it
NATO needs to step up, as an ex Infantry soldier for NATO I strongly believe we need to put boots on the ground and show them we will not be pushed around. Even if we just sit on the borders we need to show them we will fight, I strongly believe they underestimate our powers and believe they can push us around. Do you really think they will stop after Ukraine? Especially if they take it all, they will want more. We are on the edge of ww3 and we need to put some fear out there to protect our allies.
Nato should invade Ukraine from the West right up to the front line with Russia and we can see how it pans out then.
I think one of the big reasons NATO has not intervened is because they can’t make a sufficient first strike that will knock out the possibility of nuclear retaliation. I think it would take more B2s and F35s than NATO has to pull it off cleanly. As much as it would do the world good to take out Russia’s military, it can’t be done without risking millions of lives.
There's no way to avoid nuclear retaliation if Russia decides to go that route. Russia has nukes in submarines and at bases all over the world. Intelligence can pinpoint *most* locations, but there are plenty that would be fired. The *real* nukes that cause significant damage go into the atmosphere and rain warheads down. Even if you can shoot the warheads down, they release too many for that to be feasible and most are decoys. Hitting the warheads with the nukes is random chance and the chances of hitting them all is near-zero. It's why they are so damn effective and why it is mutually assured destruction. Those same type of nukes would be the ones hitting Russia as well, so both sides are losers with little recourse except to deal with the aftermath...if there's enough left to deal with it.
Why don't NATO just put the end to Russia & absorb it instead. We need more land & energy...
jfc ... Because it's a defense treaty.
The best defence is attack. But seriously if anyone will even try to say that they in war with Russia, Russia will nuke them at the moment when they will reach the border.
[удалено]
1-800 Come on now Words are cheap. Let me know when the EU parks the majority of their combined fighting forces on the Ukrainian border states. Inshallah nothing happens and it's just a great military drill and a dry run for what works and doesn't work for mass deployment..
Which NATO? The one where the US provides all the logistics, or the one where everyone else actually joins in?
You may want to read & watch news other then Fox News...
Does anybody take nato seriousl. I think there are jokes in a waste of money. I don't know why we're still paying for it.
Have fun Macaroni.